Open mike 05/06/2013

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 5th, 2013 - 202 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

202 comments on “Open mike 05/06/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    5 June 2013 at 6:06 am

    An Australian Green Party MP warns the Green Party here, to be very careful about going into coalition with Labour:

    The Green Party will have to fight to hold on to its identity if it enters into a coalition with Labour at next year’s election, an Australian Greens politician says.

    Speaking at the Green Party conference in Christchurch, Victorian senator Richard Di Natale said Greens would have to be very clear about what policies and principles they would not compromise on.

    Isaac Davision New Zealand Herald Mon June , 2013

    The New Zealand Green Party leadership have been very clear on what policies and principles they would compromise on.

    All of them.

    There are, “no bottom lines for post-election negotiations”.

    Norman/Turia

    • AsleepWhileWalking 1.1
      5 June 2013 at 8:58 am

      The exact quote from the above article actually reads:
      Speaking at the Green Party conference in Christchurch, Victorian senator Richard Di Natale said Greens would have to be very clear about what policies and principles they would not compromise on.

      As far as I can see the Greens are a party with the strongest sense of identity (what they stand for) and they appear the least likely to compromise anything. I conclude voting for the Greens won’t be wasted.

    • weka 1.2
      5 June 2013 at 11:37 am

      The New Zealand Green Party leadership have been very clear on what policies and principles they would compromise on.

      All of them.

      There are, “no bottom lines for post-election negotiations”.

      Norman/Turia

      Sigh, telling lies again Jenny. Please don’t use quotation when you are not quoting someone. There is other html to be used to get you point across.

      I’ve googled this There are, “no bottom lines for post-election negotiations”., and got only one hit that comes close and no, it’s not a quote of Norman or Turei about being willing to compromise anything. It’s a slight paraphrase of a quote from the the Dom Post reporting on Norman talking about the GP relationship with Labour (it’s an interesting article).

      Here’s part of what he said –

      the Opposition parties will announce the results of their manufacturing inquiry later this month.

      “They’ve got their schtick, we’ve got ours,” Dr Norman says. He has no bottom lines for post-election negotiations.

      “If you don’t have 51 per cent of the votes in Parliament, then you’ve got to talk to people … Labour and the Greens are trying to develop a relationship where we can talk even when we disagree … where we find a compromise will depend on the relative strengths of either party.”

      In October, he refused to rule in or out becoming finance minister in any future coalition, but did say the party would be looking for key portfolios: “Economics and finance portfolios, but other social and environmental portfolios.”

      He still won’t confirm what politicos all suspect – that he wants charge of the Treasury.

      “We will sort all that in negotiations after. Obviously we want to have a significant influence on the government and that means having important ministries … Cabinet seats should be roughly proportional to the relationship between the different parties involved in it.”

      So, He has no bottom lines for post-election negotiations. when taken in context, sounds to me like he’s not making demands of the Labour party and much will depend on how many seats they get, but also on how well the two parties are getting along. eg it’s obvious he wants Finance, but he knows that it’s not a given. The major bit that Jenny is missing (or intentionally leaving out) is that the GP value relationship and recognise that coalition is as much about that as it is about getting what one wants, and that they have skills in negotiating and relationship building that should improve the left’s chances of forming a stable and coherent govt (assuming Labour can manage that from their side).

      • tamati 1.2.1
        5 June 2013 at 11:52 am

        There is plenty of historical examples of minor parties being rooted after going into Coalition with a ‘big brother’. If the Green’s wish to keep their support and their conscience I suggest they opt for the Gingrich standard

        “…to be open to working with everyone, that we will cooperate with anyone, and we will compromise with no one”

        • Pascal's bookie 1.2.1.1
          5 June 2013 at 12:00 pm

          Really? the Republican party as a model for how to operate?

          • tamati 1.2.1.1.1
            5 June 2013 at 12:10 pm

            Adopt his strategy not his ideology, obviously.

            • Pascal's bookie 1.2.1.1.1.1
              5 June 2013 at 12:19 pm

              It’s a strategy of obstruction though. I really don’t think it will work under MMP.

              What Gingrich was saying was that he would not co-operate with a Dem president unless the Dem president was doing what the GOP demanded. In a coalition govt, how will that possibly work?

              • tamati …
                5 June 2013 at 12:38 pm

                If they don’t they’ll end up like Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  5 June 2013 at 12:49 pm

                  Not necessarily.

                  But I’m wondering how what you advise would work in practice. Any thoughts?

                  • tamati …
                    5 June 2013 at 2:44 pm

                    In practice I’d advise the Greens, that it’s better for their long term survival to aspire to lead a government than be the tail of a rather timid dog.

                    However, I guess my advice was probably more relevent to the negotiations after an election, rather than the day to day running of a government. They need to avoid being seen as simply a wing of the Labour party and be able to publicly disagree with Labour whislt in government. In negotiating they need stand firm to their principles and empower their party membership to have a final say on any agrements. And, as much as it may hurt, be prepared to go into opposition against a Labour-NZ first government in 2014.

                • Jenny …
                  5 June 2013 at 6:21 pm

                  Nick Clegg, Joshka Fischer, Jim Anderton, Peter Sharples. Pragamatists of the world hall of shame. Welcomes new prospective entrants, Russel Norman and Metiria Turei

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    5 June 2013 at 6:27 pm

                    I sense that you are going to have a life long disappointment with politicians.

      • Jenny 1.2.2
        5 June 2013 at 6:09 pm

        ….. telling lies again Jenny.

        weka

        Of course Weka.
        And you will apologise when? When the Greens sign up to be part of an administration that supports, Fracking, Deep Sea Oil Drilling and the leveling of the Denniston Plateau for its coal? Maybe? Possibly? I doubt it. Then you will argue that such a monumental sell out was necessary in the interests of pragmatism.

        All the evidence is that the Green Party leadership are quite open to the idea of dumping principled opposition to climate change for cabinet positions. Your and others continued cover for this reality will only make it more likely that they will follow through.

        • Colonial Viper 1.2.2.1
          5 June 2013 at 6:30 pm

          Still pissing into the tent from the outside I see.

          • weka 1.2.2.1.1
            5 June 2013 at 6:43 pm

            Ae.

          • Jenny 1.2.2.1.2
            6 June 2013 at 8:14 am

            Still pissing into the tent from the outside I see.

            Colonial Viper

            I couldn’t count the number of times I have heard this crudity expressed to me by Labour Party supporters and politicians, particularly during the Rogenomic years. But also many times after. As they tell it. The full quote reads; “It is better to be in the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.” I always ask those politicians who have dared to express this crudity to me. (Safe and warm inside their tent). “Yes, But who are you pissing on?”

            It doesn’t surprise me CV, that you are recommending this cynical viewpoint to the Greens.

            It also doesn’t surprise me that weka, (see his following comment), thinks you are being witty, and not politically crude.

            • Colonial Viper 1.2.2.1.2.1
              6 June 2013 at 8:22 am

              Your offence at metaphorical crude language your best defence now?

              The Green membership have a huge control over party policy. Why aren’t you in there persuading them with your strong views? Why are you outside pissing in trying to lecture to their caucus?

              Why are you happy to complain but not happy to take up the role and responsibility of being a Green Party member speaking up at their Conference?

              • weka …
                6 June 2013 at 11:11 am

                There is no comparison between the Labour Party in the 80s and the GP now. CV has explained why several times now. It actually says alot about you that you would draw that comparison and not understand the very real structural and procedural reasons for why it is false (have you not been paying any attention to the problems the Labour party has with democracy?).

                Did you notice that CV didn’t say anything about being on the inside pissing out? Why would you assume that he was suggesting that?

                I didn’t find his comment witty, I found it astute. Please don’t put words in my mouth or motives in my comments that aren’t there (god knows how you could read anything about my attitude or response from a one word comment anyway).

                • Jenny …
                  6 June 2013 at 2:43 pm

                  Did you notice that CV didn’t say anything about being on the inside pissing out? Why would you assume that he was suggesting that?

                  weka

                  Weka have you never heard this before? It is the unspoken first half of this often repeated in house, Labour Party saying.

                  Which goes in full;
                  “It is better to be in the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in”.

                  CV knows, that I know, this familiar Labour Party saying. He was just using short hand.

                  Weka this obviously unfamiliar to you, popular Labour Party in-house crudity, has been used over the decades numerous times, to excuse all sorts of political accommodations and compromises and sell outs.

                  P.S. I hope this clarification helps you.

                  No, no need to thank me. It is all part of the service.

                  • weka …
                    6 June 2013 at 6:08 pm

                    Nevertheless Jenny, that fact that you can’t see the difference between the 80s Labour Party and the Green Party in this respect tells us much. I think it is probably part of the problem. You are simply incapable of acknowledging the skills the GP bring to the table that no-one else has.

                    • Jenny …
                      7 June 2013 at 2:43 am

                      Weka, You are trying to say I made a comparison, I never made.

                      I was criticising CV for expressing an old Rogernomics era mantra. This is nothing near comparing the Green Party to the ’80s Labour Party, and to say so is dishonest.

              • Jenny …
                6 June 2013 at 2:20 pm

                Your offence at metaphorical crude language your best defence now?

                Colonial Viper

                No. But the crude opportunist idea that lies behind this popular in-house Labour Party mantra. This very same phrase was used as an excuse by those opposed to Roger Douglas who kept their silence, afraid of losing their positions in the tent.

                Helen Clark put it another way “I was not prepared to die in a ditch”.

                Crude words for a crude political message.

                Principle can be sacrificed for narrow self interest.

                In talking of dying in a ditch, Clark was only talking metaphorically, of course. But I think her words and the cowardly and opportunist ideas behind them would ring hollow to those in previous generations who had been prepared to die in ditches for principle. Literally.

        • weka 1.2.2.2
          5 June 2013 at 6:57 pm

          And you will apologise when? When the Greens sign up to be part of an administration that supports, Fracking, Deep Sea Oil Drilling and the leveling of the Denniston Plateau for its coal? Maybe? Possibly? I doubt it. Then you will argue that such a monumental sell out was necessary in the interests of pragmatism.

          If the GP compromise their policy positions on those things, then I will probably resign my membership. However, I think what you are meaning is simply whether they go into coalition with a party that has different policy positions on those things (i.e. Labour). We already know that is what they intend.

          What we don’t know is how they will manage their integrity in such a situation. I’ve said before that I think it is possible that the GP will eventually compromise too far. That is the nature of politics – those on the edge, as their ideas becomes popular and as they influence the mainstream thus become corrupted. The difference between you and I is that I just don’t see how that is anything other than inevitable. But it’s also a matter of timing – maybe they will do some good in the meantime. Maybe we will get really luck and NZ will wake the fuck up while the GP is in power and support them to do the right things.

          I also think that the GP are doing the country a service. I don’t envy them and all respect to people who choose to go into that system with their eyes open. If they sit on the outside with their integrity intact they will simply watch as Labour/Nact destroy the country. You see black and white, I see shades of grey – they’ve made compromises so far that I’m reasonable comfortable with. I’m not sure where my limit is. I know that I will choose Labour/GP over NACT. That doesn’t exclude being critical of the GP if they compromise too far.

          The other difference between you and I is that I don’t see how this will play out. I think the GP has the potential to change how MMP coalition govts are formed and work, and that alone is a good enough reason IMO for them to go with Labour. But I’m also pragmatic enough to know that I could be sorely disappointed. You on the other hand claim to see the future, the One and Only Future, are willing to damn the GP before they even have a chance at doing something good, and use every opportunity to bad mouth them. I don’t understand how that would work strategically. Are you trying to convince people to not vote for the GP?

          I’m also curious who you will be giving your party vote to. Care to share that with us?

          • Colonial Viper 1.2.2.2.1
            5 June 2013 at 7:16 pm

            Another factor – Green Party members vote on major policy decisions. Jenny keeps moaning about Turei and Norman, but conveniently forgets that fact.

            • Jenny 1.2.2.2.1.1
              7 June 2013 at 2:49 am

              Is it is true? Have the Green Party membership voted for their party to become part of an administration that approves Deep Sea Oil Drilling, Fracking, Denniston, Coal Mining and BAU?

              Was this issue visited during their conference?

              Have the Green Party membership voted a blank cheque for their leadership to dispense with all “bottom lines” in coalition talks to get cabinet positions?

          • Jenny 1.2.2.2.2
            6 June 2013 at 9:13 am

            I don’t understand how that would work strategically……

            …..I’m also curious who you will be giving your party vote to. Care to share that with us?

            weka

            I will attempt to answer both your questions with one answer.

            I will give my party vote to the Greens if they announce that their strategy will be to denounce and fight climate change at every opportunity.*

            I will give my party vote to the Green Party if they announce that they will refuse to go into a coalition that will hog tie them to Business As Usual and increasing CO2 emmissions.

            I will give my party vote to the Green Party if they return to the strategy pursued by Rod Donald, and Hone Harawira. To actively and openly campaign and put pressure on all the parties in parliament for what they want to achieve. The Green Party have shown that such a strategy can be very effective, even against tories. Rod Donald with his MMP campaign, effectively forced MMP on a right wing Bolger administration.

            How more effective would such a campaign be if it was directed against a Labour administration, hell bent on Deep Sea Mining, fracking etc?

            If you asked me, I would say, “Overwhelming”.

            weka you tell me that the Green Party should give this away, for back room horse trading in principles for minor concessions?

            Maybe, just as the Maori Party got Whanau Ora and the Alliance got Kiwi Bank. By agreeing to go into government with Labour, the Green Party might get tossed public health nurses in schools, and tighter legislation protecting water ways. But that will be it. And the cost will be high. Going from past examples it could mean the end of the Green Party as an independent political force in parliament. Which in my opinion will be a tragedy.

            *(I will probably give my party vote to the Greens anyway, even though I think their current strategy will be a disaster. For two reasons. One, I still think that the Green Party remain one of the most left wing parties in parliament. And two, the Mana Party say that they will not campaigning for the party vote this time around. And instead will concentrate all their efforts on the Maori electoral seats. A political strategy I disagree with, because I think it will be a political dead end. Trapping Mana in silo politics and robbing them of general appeal.)

            • weka 1.2.2.2.2.1
              6 June 2013 at 11:05 am

              Right, so you’re going to party vote Green irrespective of what they do. Kind of like me.

              The main difference between us that I can see is that you claim the GP has already made its decisions to compromise in ways that will spell doom and gloom. I just don’t see the evidence for that. It’s true they might, but they might actually surprise us too. So strategically, I think giving them support to do teh right thing is better than giving them shit and undermining them for something you personally suspect they might do but don’t really know and have no evidence for.

              You still haven’t explained how your strategy of publicaly undermining the GP works towards your aims.

              Go join the GP Jenny, get involved, go to meetings or join the online discussions they have and have some influence on what they do.

              • Jenny …
                6 June 2013 at 3:04 pm

                Not irrespective of what they might do, but in spite of, what they will do.

                Probably like many others.

                • weka …
                  6 June 2013 at 6:11 pm

                  Yet you will vote either way. So why spend all this time denigrating them? You still haven’t told me what you hope to achieve by this tactic.

                  Also, why you don’t join, where you can have some influence.

                  • Jenny …
                    7 June 2013 at 9:08 am

                    I think we can tell what influence the Green Party members have from their conference. The only Green Party voices we were allowed to hear were of Turei and Norman.

                    Also because of the secrecy surrounding this conference. I also have not heard, (yet) if the members actually did get to discuss and vote on whether the leadership should go into the coalition talks with Labour with “No bottom lines for post-election negotiations”.

                    Which going on the evidence, we all must agree by now, is the Green Party officially stated position.

                    There are, “no bottom lines for post-election negotiations”.

                    Norman/Turia

                    Oops. I done it again.

          • Jenny 1.2.2.2.3
            6 June 2013 at 2:59 pm

            If the GP compromise their policy positions on those things, then I will probably resign my membership. However, I think what you are meaning is simply whether they go into coalition with a party that has different policy positions on those things (i.e. Labour). We already know that is what they intend.

            weka

            The Labour Party don’t just have different policy positions “on those things”, (Mining Denniston Deep Sea Oil Drilling, Fracking) as you politely put it, weka. They fully intend to go ahead with these things.

            And by going into government with them, the Green Party agrees to let them do so unopposed. Are you suggesting that they are not?

            weka, are you saying that the Greens will launch a campaign against government policies when they are part of that government and bound by collective cabinet responsibility?

            • weka 1.2.2.2.3.1
              6 June 2013 at 6:10 pm

              So would you be happy if the GP went into govt and as part of that won an agreement from Labour to not mine Denniston?

              Can one of the Labour people here tell us if that would be a hard thing for Labour to give up?

              “And by going into government with them, the Green Party agrees to let them do so unopposed. Are you suggesting that they are not?”

              What makes you think that the GP being outside of govt will make a blind bit of difference to Denniston, deep oil etc (as opposed to being inside)? Haven’t you been telling us for months now that the GP are no longer prioritising those things? You can’t have it both ways Jenny.

              btw most of the action that’s passed my view about deep sea oil drilling has come from NGOs.

              “weka, are you saying that the Greens will launch a campaign against government policies when they are part of that government and bound by collective cabinet responsibility?”

              No, I’m saying that I don’t know how they will manage that. And neither do you.

              • Jenny …
                7 June 2013 at 4:48 am

                So would you be happy if the GP went into govt and as part of that won an agreement from Labour to not mine Denniston?

                weka

                Weka, YES. Yes, I would. This would be a major concession from Labour. And major blow to the fossil fuel industry. Stopping Denniston would be a step forward in the war against climate change in this country. I would be overjoyed. I would be stunned if the Greens could win such a concession from the Labour Party.

                Can one of the Labour people here tell us if that would be a hard thing for Labour to give up?

                weka

                Yes, come on Labour Party people, tell us what you think.

                How about you Colonial Viper? How about you R0B? Or maybe lprent? Would any of you like to have a go at answering weka’s question. Maybe even EDDIE might like to share her opinion with us?

                (Many environmental NGOs and climate change activists regard the proposed Denniston Coal Mine to be the equivalent of New Zealand’s XL pipeline. According to these activists, just as stopping the XL pipeline would show that Obama is serious about climate change. Stopping the Denniston Open Cast Export Coal Mine would be a major symbolic sign to the world that New Zealanders take climate change seriously. For these people, stopping this coal mine would be a huge feather in the Green Party’s cap.)

                What makes you think that the GP being outside of govt will make a blind bit of difference to Denniston, deep oil etc (as opposed to being inside)?

                weka

                I am informed by the success of Mana Party’s brilliant “Feed the Kids” campaign. I am informed by the amazing Green Party led campaign against partial asset sales.
                But most of all I am informed by the 1984 Opposition Labour Party’s campaign against Nuclear Ship Visits. Labour despite being the minority Opposition party in an FPP environment. Through a powerful anti-nuclear Campaign waged both inside and outside of parliament, the Labour Party swayed two, yes TWO National government Ministers to cross the floor to vote to make New Zealand nuclear free. In an MMP environment, such a strategy would be even easier succeed. (for a number of reasons).

                Weka as for the second part of this question, “(as opposed to being inside)?”

                Inside the government, the Green MPs will be prevented by collective responsibility from waging a campaign or even putting up bills that oppose government policy.

                In cabinet, even if the Greens get the proportional amount of cabinet ministers they seek, they will still be outvoted every single time. Yet will be shackled by the rules of cabinet responsibility to support policies that they fundamentally don’t agree with, (to the dismay of their supporters).

                Haven’t you been telling us for months now that the GP are no longer prioritising those things? You can’t have it both ways Jenny.

                weka

                weka I don’t know what you mean about “both ways”. But Yes. I have been pointing out that the Green Party are not even giving equal billing to climate change, (let alone prioritising it). Instead as I have pointed out the Green Party have been actively playing down Climate Change.

                But why are they doing this?

                One of the main reasons, is that the Greens, positioning themselves to go into coalition with Labour, know that Labour don’t want climate change raised. And that demanding action over climate change issues will be a major impediment to a coalition agreement.

                (Hence the need for a “no bottom lines” negotiating policy)

                By foregoing coalition, the Greens will be freed up to talk about climate change openly again.

                btw most of the action that’s passed my view about deep sea oil drilling has come from NGOs.

                weka

                Indeed. And doesn’t that tell you something?

                “weka, are you saying that the Greens will launch a campaign against government policies when they are part of that government and bound by collective cabinet responsibility?”

                Jenny

                No, I’m saying that I don’t know how they will manage that. And neither do you.

                weka

                But I do know.

                And, if you admit it to yourself, so do you. In a formal coalition with Labour the Green Party will be bound to obey the rules of collective cabinet responsibility. That is what a coalition agreement means. Beyond the concessions wrung out of Labour during the coalition talks, that is what you are stuck with. We have been informed that there are no bottom lines. If no bottom lines are agreed to, what possibly could a minority of Green Party Cabinet Ministers achieve against the wishes of a cabinet dominated by Labour Ministers? The answer is nothing.

                • Jenny …
                  7 June 2013 at 9:18 am

                  P.S. I forgot to mention the successful Rod Donald led campaign waged by the Green Party that brought us MMP.

                  Another example of campaign waged by a party outside of government that made a major break through.

                  There are also some other examples I am aware of. But will have to do some more research on.

                  But weka I think you have enough to go on to get the idea.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  7 June 2013 at 9:24 am

                  Jenny.

                  Are there any bills that have been passed by this current government which member parties of the coalition opposed?

                  Collective resposibility is an issue, but it is subservient to coaltion agreements under MMP, I think you’ll find.

                  I hestitate to wade into this, because like others I find your position to be at best naive.

                  If you don’t like the idea of the green party being in government to your taste, then don’t vote for them. It’s as simple as that. I’m pretty sure that all prties in NZ seek to be part of government. There are other models available, but no party is following those models. If that’s a deal breaker for you, then that’s your decision.

                  People really can disagree with yuo about strategy. they really can! It doesn’t make then dishonest, or false or stupid, or anything else.

                  Again, f you don’t like the Greens, or trust themt o be what you want them to be, then don’t vote for them. Please. Find something to support that wont disappoint you.

                  • Jenny …
                    7 June 2013 at 12:33 pm

                    Collective resposibility is an issue, but it is subservient to coaltion agreements under MMP, I think you’ll find.

                    Pascal’s bookie

                    Of course collective responsibility is subservient to coalition agreements.

                    This is why the Green Party announced position that there will be no bottom lines in negotiating a coalition agreement is so alarming.

                    If the Green Party don’t get agreement to stop Deep Sea Oil Drilling, or Fracking, or Denniston, in the coalition negotiations and still decide to proceed. Then they will be locked into supporting these policies in government. This will lead to clash with many of their supporters. Maybe even leading to bitter clashes inside their caucus between ministers in cabinet and ministers not in cabinet.

                    This has all happened before, here, and overseas. And should be no surprise to those who follow politics.

      • fatty 1.2.3
        5 June 2013 at 6:36 pm

        Sigh, telling lies again Jenny. Please don’t use quotation when you are not quoting someone.

        I am unsure if it is the exact quote, but I remember Turei making that comment in this interview.

        Unfortunately the video is not playing for me, so I can’t be sure. I think it was possibly the last thing said in the interview

        • weka 1.2.3.1
          5 June 2013 at 6:59 pm

          Fatty, you can see what Norman said in the quote and link I gave above. I was just pointing out that Jenny was selectively quoting out of context to deliberately skew what the GP are doing, as part of her ongoing agenda to discredit them going into govt.

          • fatty 1.2.3.1.1
            5 June 2013 at 7:07 pm

            Yeah, but I think the quote “no bottom lines for post-election negotiations” was actually said by Turei in the interview I linked (or close to that).
            I can’t be sure as I can’t get it to play.

          • Jenny 1.2.3.1.2
            7 June 2013 at 8:28 am

            I’ve said before that I think it is possible that the GP will eventually compromise too far. That is the nature of politics – those on the edge, as their ideas becomes popular and as they influence the mainstream thus become corrupted. The difference between you and I is that I just don’t see how that is anything other than inevitable.

            weka

            You are right, the difference between you and me, is that where you see this process of corruption as inevitable. I don’t.

            I do not agree, with you weka, that as the Green Party become more able to influence the mainstream, that they will “thus become corrupted”. And as you also say; “I just don’t see how that is anything other than inevitable.”

            I don’t see this process of corruption as inevitable at all.

            I think that I have put up a credible alternative strategy to avoid that time honoured end trajectory. But not only that, I think that it is a strategy more in line with the Green Party founders, Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimmons strategic approach.

            weka you support a strategic approach which you say will inevitably lead to corruption?

            And you accuse me of discrediting the Green Party?

            You are obviously not a Green Party member, or supporter at all.

            I don’t know why I bother talking with you.

            I suppose you will try and accuse me of quoting you out of context again.

            I was just pointing out that Jenny was selectively quoting out of context to deliberately skew what the GP are doing, as part of her ongoing agenda to discredit them going into govt.

            weka

        • karol 1.2.3.2
          5 June 2013 at 7:14 pm

          Yes, in that interview, Turei says that “we don’t do bottom lines anymore, that is so 2005.”

          But the whole focus by Turei throughout the interview is on negotiation, working to support other parties on points they agree with, and making clear when they disagree with other parties. She gave as an example that they have worked with the (always difficult) Winston Peters on the anti-asset sales petition, and the manufacturing inquiry. However, the main area where they disagree with Peters is on his racism and they wouldn’t support his position on immigration.

          Also, in the interview, Turei refuses to commit to too much on the policies they will be promoting closer to the election. She gives three main areas that they consider important, ummm…. one on poverty, and maybe affordable housing, and the environment.

          Basically, she gave the impression that the Greens have a new confidence that they are in a stronger political position than ever before, and that they will have the numbers and ability to promote some of their key policies/issues.

          Elsewhere I have seen the Greens said at last weekend’s conference that they need to take steps to ensure they maintain independence in any progressive government. So, they are aware of the difficult tightrope they need to walk in such a government. I will wait for further information as to how this will play out before I criticise. It is a tricky position for any medium sized party to negotiate.

          • weka 1.2.3.2.1
            5 June 2013 at 9:19 pm

            Thanks Karol. I’m looking forward to seeing what the GP comes up with next year as the election approaches.

      • QoT 1.2.4
        5 June 2013 at 9:11 pm

        Oh weka. Your facts and citations have no place here!

  2. vto 2
    5 June 2013 at 6:31 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8755679/OECD-call-for-capital-gains-tax

    In our business we come across people all the time, usually already wealthy, who do in fact do exactly this. Working for tax-free capital gain is what pretty much everyone does. It is only the hapless wage earner or salary earner who get consistently slapped with tax bills.

    This is the biggest rort in our country. It is the biggest rip-off. Dole bludgers don’t even register on the scale required to measure this, THE GREAT RIP OFF.

    Who does it? Pretty much all farmers do it. Pretty much all property investors do it. Many many small business owners do it. Most big businesses do it.

    They all earn an income from their business sure, but either the main aim or a substantial part of their moeny-earning aim is the tax free money earned from an increase the the capital value of their business / property. The OECD even says this here … ” much of the income at top levels was in the form of capital gains, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said.”

    New Zealand’s biggest con bar none.

    And the workers are paying for it.

    The bastards need calling on it.

  3. Jenny 3
    5 June 2013 at 6:40 am

    The question must be asked:

    What exactly will the Greens be gaining from cabinet positions?

    Even if Russel Norman gets the number of cabinet posts, based on the Green party proportionality in the new government. (something Labour is resisting). Dr Norman and his colleagues will still be outvoted on every single cabinet decision, yet will be locked into supporting them, through “collective cabinet responsibility”?

    Not only that, but the rest of the Green caucus, subject to their party whip will be prevented from putting up any bills that would oppose government policy. Effectively hand cuffing themselves.

    The choice for the Greens is clear, become part of the solution, or part of the problem.

    • bad12 3.1
      5 June 2013 at 7:10 am

      If any of what you say were to become the reality, your negativity would have us saddled permanently with a National Government,

      The only other possible alternative is that the Green Party support a minority Labour Government on confidence and supply whilst trying to shoehorn Green Party policy onto a Labour Government agenda,

      i know which of those alternatives i prefer, there are in Labour still a number of solidly left leaning MP’s who in a contest in Cabinet may well be swayed by the Green Party position,

      What is your motivation vis a vis such attacks upon the Green Party ???, failed candidate???, National Party voter???, right wing of the Labour Party???…

      • AsleepWhileWalking 3.1.1
        5 June 2013 at 9:01 am

        Paid?

      • Jenny 3.1.2
        5 June 2013 at 4:51 pm

        I agree with your assessment that there are a still a number of solidly left leaning MP’s.

        The Green Party would have much more chance of success in lobbying these MPs to supporting Green Party legislation banning Deep Sea Oil Drilling for instance, if they were not in government, where bound by collective cabinet responsibility they would not be even able to put up any legislation opposing government policy.

        Despite all the science screaming against it, Labour Party policy in government will be: support Deep Sea Oil Drilling, Increase Coal Mining, Allow Fracking (albeit with a little more regulation) Continue increasing Green House Gas Emissions. Are the Greens prepared to go along with all this, which they will have to, to achieve cabinet positions?

        There are two strategies. One is pragmatic, the other is principled.

        We must ask ourselves which strategy has proved more effective?

        With their “Feed the Kids” campaign and only one MP, Mana has forced National to make concessions around child poverty.

        Rod Donald with hardly any MPs and no money. Led and organised one of the greatest political campaigns in this country’s history to achieve MMP against powerful well funded establishment opposition.

        This is called leadership. It doesn’t matter how big your party is, or how many MPs you have. Those who give the lead are the leaders.

        What about those parties that went into coalition with bigger parties? Yes they got rewarded with trinkets, Whanau Ora for the Maori Party, and Kiwi Bank for the Alliance. But in return for keeping their cabinet positions, they got dragged behind the government’s chariot, (in the case of the Alliance, quite literally).

        In my opinion the Greens would have their hands free to achieve more for the climate and the environment if they stayed out of coalition giving Labour confidence and supply but reserving the right to lobby the left leaning Labour MPs over the issues they care about.

        • weka 3.1.2.1
          5 June 2013 at 5:06 pm

          “In my opinion the Greens would have their hands free to achieve more for the climate and the environment if they stayed out of coalition giving Labour confidence and supply but reserving the right to lobby the left leaning Labour MPs over the issues they care about.”

          I kind of get what you are saying Jenny, but I don’t agree with your strategy. Better that the GP goes into coalition because that is what it has been working hard for all these years and so that is what they are geared up to do (if they don’t get into govt, some of the people in the GP with skills and experience will move on, which means the GP has to use more of its time/energy/resources finding replacements). There are things they can do from within govt that they simply cannot from the outside. Look at previous Labour led govts and what the GP has been able to achieve and what they haven’t.

          If the GP get into a coalition govt, it leaves space for others to step up and do the kind of advocacy/lobbying that you refer to. Whether that is a group in parliament or outside, it will be way easier to make gains with the GP part of the govt than lobbying Labour alone.

          • Jenny 3.1.2.1.1
            6 June 2013 at 9:48 am

            If the GP get into a coalition govt, it leaves space for others to step up and do the kind of advocacy/lobbying that you refer to.

            weka

            There are several failures in this rationalistion for the strategy you support.

            First it is an admittance that the Greens are to abandon a provenly effective strategy, for arguably less effective negotiations by the executive at the top table. A top down approach that effectively side lines the membership and hands power to the executive. An approach fraught with pitfalls.

            Secondly who are these others you want to step up to take over this role that you admit that the Greens are abandoning?

            And if they did step up will you vote for them instead of the Greens?

            • weka 3.1.2.1.1.1
              6 June 2013 at 11:19 am

              First it is an admittance that the Greens are to abandon a provenly effective strategy,

              No, it’s not. Please show me the concrete gains that the GP have made whilst outside government.

              for arguably less effective negotiations by the executive at the top table.

              Where’s the argument?

              A top down approach that effectively side lines the membership and hands power to the executive.

              Citation needed for the membership being sidelined and power being placed solely in the hands of the executive.

              An approach fraught with pitfalls.

              Risks acknowledged, but better brains than you or I assess the risks as being worth the gains.

              Secondly who are these others you want to step up to take over this role that you admit that the Greens are abandoning?

              If the GP are in govt and Mana are outside, I expect as Mana grows as a party and movement that they will step into being the main party on the left that holds that ‘lobbying’/holding govt to account position. Of course that’s not all the GP did/does. They also have significant effect on thought in NZ around environmental issues. I expect Mana to step into that place for social justice issues. In terms of the environment I would see in the short and medium term that environmental NGOs will have more prominence and ability to work with govt because the GP are there.

              I think you really fail to see that the GP have the potential to change how things are done. They already work significantly differently within the party than any other large party, and their approaches to being in govt will be different than anything we have seen before from small parties (not hard given our examples have mainly been Dunne, Peters and the MP).

              And if they did step up will you vote for them instead of the Greens?

              I vote strategically not ideologically, so it would really depend on what was going on that year.

              • Jenny …
                6 June 2013 at 4:05 pm

                I think you really fail to see that the GP have the potential to change how things are done.

                weka

                It is because I believe that the Greens, do have the potential to change things. That I am distressed that they seem determined to follow a proven road to ruin.

                They can’t say they haven’t been warned:

                …..it was easy for minority parties to be diluted or belittled when part of government.

                Maintaining your identity when there is a perception that you are part of the government is a huge challenge.

                “You are often lumbered with the mistakes of the majority partner and on those things were achievements were made it can sometimes be difficult to have your role recognised.”

                Dr Di Natale

                They already work significantly differently within the party than any other large party, and their approaches to being in govt will be different than anything we have seen before from small parties (not hard given our examples have mainly been Dunne, Peters and the MP).

                weka

                Talk about hubris.

                weka you should also never forget the disaster that was the Alliance.

                You assert that, “….their approaches to being in govt will be different than anything we have seen before”. I think you will be right, but not in the way you imagine.

                weka you may have confidence in the “superiour brains” of the Green Party leaders to
                shift the majority of Labour cabinet ministers. Their brains may be big, but their egos are bigger. Because no matter how superior their brains, the Green Party MPs will still be the minority in cabinet. And when their clever arguments fail to shift the majority of Labour cabinet ministers, they will be bound by cabinet responsibility into supporting whatever Labour decides.

                Not so clever at all.

                • weka …
                  6 June 2013 at 6:03 pm

                  “It is because I believe that the Greens, do have the potential to change things. That I am distressed that they seem determined to follow a proven road to ruin.”

                  Are you being deliberately obtuse? I was talking about how parties form coalition. How can the GP makes changes to that process from the outside?

                  “weka you should also never forget the disaster that was the Alliance.”

                  Do I really need to spell out the differences between the Alliance and the GP? Seriously?

                  If you are right – that any ‘minority’ party is doomed to fail simply by being a minority party (irrespective of their skills) – then nothing will change. We will remain stuck in the neoliberal hell that is NACT/Labour swapping out every couple of terms. How on earth you see the GP influencing that from the outside is beyond me. And in the meantime Rome burns.

                  • Jenny …
                    7 June 2013 at 5:23 am

                    If you are right – that any ‘minority’ party is doomed to fail simply by being a minority party.

                    weka

                    weka I have never said that. Nowhere near it. That is just your deliberate spin on what I have been saying.

                    The closest I have got to saying that. Is that the Green Party, (though it is not definite) are likely to fail, and fail spectacularly, if they go into coalition with Labour without securing any major concessions. (That is beyond minor concessions sought by the Greens over cleaner waterways and public health nurses in schools. Things Labour would probably agree to anyway, and would have no problem over).

  4. kiwicommie 4
    5 June 2013 at 7:04 am

    Frustrated and tired with a lack of support for dyslexia, the Johnstone family are leaving New Zealand for the United States next month.

    Just months before Jeni Johnstone moved from California to New Zealand in 2006, with Cantabrian husband James, their son Ian was diagnosed with dyslexia.

    “We heard such good things about the New Zealand education system and we thought we were both intelligent and engaged enough to support Ian,” Johnstone said.

    But it was not until 2007, a year after they arrived, that the Government formally recognised dyslexia as a learning disability and began funding programmes including reading assistance and resource teachers.

    “But it [the programme] did not help Ian, it is not phonetic and kids with dyslexia need to be explicitly taught chronological methods,” Johnstone said.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/8755641/Family-heads-to-US-for-dyslexia-support

    Since I was educated for several years in Australia I can understand this. New Zealand has always had poor support for people with dyslexia and other learning disabilities. It forces families with disabled children (who have the means) to leave the country to support their children’s education.

  5. mickysavage 5
    5 June 2013 at 7:04 am

    Comment of the year on a blog has to go to Danyl McLaughlan’s comment at the sewer yesterday.

    If you missed it Farrar did a typical dog whistle post hinting that a blogger, gasp, a blogger may have been on the parliamentary payroll.  The hypocrisy obviously escaped him.

    The swarm, after fed a hunk of red meat, started to throw around names and Danyl’s name was one of them.

    His response needs to go down in the records of the blogosphere.

    He replied:

    1. It’s not me.
    2. You witless imbeciles
    3. I’m always (mildly) entertained by the sheep-like gullibility of the Kiwiblog comments hive-mind. You KNOW that everything the biased mainstream media prints is a lie, but if the government’s pollster publishes a vague, unsourced rumour on his blog you all start bleating in synchronised outrage.
    4. Idiots.
    5. But let’s assume it is true. There are only two parties so desperate they’d PAY a blogger. DPF wouldn’t betray ACT, so that leaves Mana. Hmmmm. Two candidates there.
    6. And don’t you clowns have jobs? Pete George: 17,696 comments. What the hell is wrong with you?
    7. Even if this person exists, their salary will only be a fraction of whatever DPF’s company earns from Parliamentary Services and other taxpayer-based revenues. You might want to think about THAT before you come on his blog and rant about the left sucking off the public teat.
    8. Dicks.

    The full majesty of the debate can be enjoyed at http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/06/a_question-10.html#comment-1152239 

    • bad12 5.1
      5 June 2013 at 7:14 am

      Lolz, that one has a certain way with words, i can’t quite muster the strength necessary to subject myself to the sewer for the full debate this morning…

      • King Kong 5.1.1
        5 June 2013 at 9:18 am

        You do realise that you are the same guy as those at Kiwiblog. The only diffence is you have less money, a propensity to wash less and a belief that others should provide you with hand outs.

    • Sanctuary 5.2
      5 June 2013 at 8:20 am

      Well that post blew up in DPF’s face. Mind you, ever since he lost weight his authoritarian arrogance has been off the hook, sort of like the way Kerre Woodham went all middle class ferral after she lost the podge and staggered her way through a marathon. His posts are increasingly hubristic and more that slightly foam flecked. God only knows what will happen when he is the first kid in the Beehive with Google glasses. He’ll probably try and sack John Key and declare himself emperor Napoleon III.

      • joe90 5.2.1
        5 June 2013 at 1:15 pm

        God only knows what will happen when he is the first kid in the Beehive with Google glasses

        Nah, never going to happen now that Google Glass has banned all porn.

    • karol 5.3
      5 June 2013 at 10:05 am

      And Bomber’s response is worth reading too:

      Declaration David Farrar’s Darth Vader helmet is too big for me

      David Farrar has delighted me by referring to me as a ‘prominent blogger‘

      Here is the declaration I have here on The Daily Blog and here is the declaration I had on Tumeke.

      I clearly point out that I am a Political consultant for left wing-organizations and go into my involvement in setting MANA up. Matthew Hooton charted that progress on forming MANA in the NBR and I even told David Farrar that MANA would launch on Backbenchers so this sudden howling of ethics is a tad twee.

      For MANA I give my opinions on politics and send an invoice. I have also worked for Greenpeace when they occupied an oil factory at Marsden, I’ve spoken at numerous Labour Party functions and fundraisers. I’ve addressed the annual Union meeting and worked with Unions to produce The Union Report and fronted save TVNZ7.

      Goes on to demolish the KB assumption that he has some hidden left wing agenda. Bomber’s politics and his involvement in media etc are all very clear.

      Farrar’s post was just an attempt to divert attention from the Lusk debacle.

      • felix 5.3.1
        5 June 2013 at 10:27 am

        *divert attention away from what the Lusk debacle suggests about Farrar’s work arrangements.

        • Pascal's bookie 5.3.1.1
          5 June 2013 at 10:39 am

          Was pretty odd that DPF was told not top speak at one of Lusk’s candidate school thingies lest people get the idea the schools were officially endorsed.

          Why would party insiders of the like who would attend such a shindig assume that?

  6. marty mars 6
    5 June 2013 at 8:18 am

    Te Hamua Nikora is not intimidated by shearers call to terrorise.

    Ikaroa-Rawhiti Candidate Te Hamua Nikora is stunned by Labour’s plan to win the electorate. In a recent press release, their leader David Shearer said “We will organise, mobilise and terrorise our political opponents”.

    Nikora said that to hear that message from Labour on a day like today when Tuhoe are settling with the Crown is in extremely poor taste. “Tuhoe haven’t forgotten that it was a Labour Government that raided their homes in Taneatua and Ruatoki in 2007. Tuhoe know that the call to raid their homes by our police came from Labour. It’s another sad legacy on the part of the Labour Party when it comes to Maori rights”.

    “MANA will not be terrorising our opponents but will be connecting with the voters of Ikaroa-Rawhiti. This weekend alone our team knocked on the doors of 1000 voters and received an overwhelming positive response. Perhaps they are being turned-off by threats of terrorism by Labour?”

    “I knew that running for Parliament would be a tough gig. But I never expected to be the target of terrorism attacks by a political opponent. Overseas they call that type of behaviour illegal. Yet in Aotearoa, Labour seems to think that terrorising the people of Tuhoe and their political opponents is ok. I know the voters of Ikaroa-Rawhiti don’t think so and I know they will deliver that message loud and clear in the voting booths on Saturday 29th June 2013”.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1306/S00023/labour-admit-to-being-terrorists.htm

    Shearers deliberate use of the word terrorise is a new low for him. He is the biggest liability there is to getting rid of the gnats. I spit on him for this attack.

    • Socialist Paddy 6.1
      5 June 2013 at 8:29 am

      The only people Shearer is terrorising are the rank and file members of the Labour Party and Labour MPs in marginal seats. Astoundingly bad choice of words to use in Tuhoe country.

      • tc 6.1.1
        5 June 2013 at 10:29 am

        Shearer is doing exactly what was expected by the NACT /CT……..driving voters from labour

    • just saying 6.2
      5 June 2013 at 9:07 am

      Leaving aside the offensiveness, and sheer idiocy of his chosen words, can anyone imagine Shearer using them about fighting National? The two main ‘enemies’, he was talking about are the Green Party, and Te Mana. National, ACT and UF aren’t in the race. Seems the only thing that makes Shearer register a pulse is putting down the left.

    • AsleepWhileWalking 6.3
      5 June 2013 at 9:12 am

      How does Labour plan to organise their opponents? Did I miss something?? Seems a little patronising.

      Just keep him talking and this will be a Green or Mana seat for shore.

      • felix 6.3.1
        5 June 2013 at 9:26 am

        Yep. Not only is it a disgraceful, offensive and stupid thing to say, it’s also a really shit bit of sentence construction.

        Shearer GTFO. NZ can’t afford your non-stop fail. Just go, and it really doesn’t matter who replaces you either.

        I mean it. Can anyone think of a Labour MP who could possibly, on their worst day, make a worse fist of the job than Shearer?

        • fender 6.3.1.1
          5 June 2013 at 9:59 am

          Mallard would be worse, but at least he can structure a sentence, however the sentences tend to put one to sleep so no I can’t think of a anyone worse.

          • felix 6.3.1.1.1
            5 June 2013 at 10:19 am

            Yeah Mallard would be bad, but only in ways that Shearer is also bad e.g:

            1. Says horrible offensive things
            2. Afraid to embrace the Greens, who are Labour’s only chance of forming a govt.

            He would have these definite advantages over Shearer though:

            1. Doesn’t much like the Nats or John Key.
            2. Can say so without people wondering if he did.
            3. Has an interest in politics.
            4. Doesn’t lick himself in public.

          • Murray Olsen 6.3.1.1.2
            5 June 2013 at 3:51 pm

            Mallard is foul and partially hopeless. Shearer is foul and totally hopeless, so I have to agree. Shearer is worse. Why the hell is he still there? He obviously doesn’t know how to win and seems to not even want to. If only the future employment of the front bench depended on him, I’d cheer him on, but we need even a slightly pink Labour firing to get the left in a position where anything can be attempted to roll back NAct legislation. I wish we didn’t. I wish we had a mass extra-parliamentary movement or a strong, fighting left party, but we don’t. Labour still holds a lot of our powder, but they’ve left it out in the rain.

            • Olwyn 6.3.1.1.2.1
              5 June 2013 at 4:30 pm

              I think we desperately need to get a pan-left movement going, and I will be very interested to see what will happen with the People’s Assembly in the UK. I am sure it can happen, I am just not sure how to get the ball rolling. My intuition is that it should begin on a convivial level, as that way it may have more chance of taking root, and leading to committed rather than wearily dutiful action.

              • Tautoko Viper …
                5 June 2013 at 5:04 pm

                Olywyn, I agree with you. I would like to see a pan-left group that encourages people to enrol for voting, gives people the information to make their own choices to vote for which ever of the left leaning parties suits them and exposes the lies and misinformation of the parties from the right. This type of group would be one for which I would be prepared to be a foot soldier.

                • Olwyn …
                  5 June 2013 at 5:26 pm

                  It is the only way I can think of by which the left can regain some real influence. The People’s Assembly is to be launched in the UK on the 17th of June, and I will be interested to see how they organise themselves, and how transferable their moves are to our neck of the woods.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  5 June 2013 at 9:20 pm

                  Olywyn, I agree with you. I would like to see a pan-left group

                  Good concept but I would suggest that the likely outcome is:

                  – Unmanageable
                  – Unfocused
                  – Undisciplined
                  – Unruly
                  – Unfunded

                  • Olwyn …
                    5 June 2013 at 10:55 pm

                    I think that enthusiasm and commitment would make up for the lack of funding to some degree at least, and I do not think you could even aim for wall-to-wall agreement. The point would be to get the left talking to each other and becoming capable of collective action, meaningful lobbying and so on. We are too dispersed, we lack a power base, and there must be a way of overcoming these problems. That they are problems shows in the fact that a few members of the Labour Party caucus can get together and decide to drive the party in whatever direction they see fit, with nothing strong enough coming from the left to give them pause.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 June 2013 at 11:42 pm

                      Hi Olwyn, I appreciate your good will and you have quite accurately deduced a major problem that the left is not capable of mounting strong collective action and lobbying.

                      You are also spot on to talk about a “power base”. However, to my mind: quality of leadership, quantity of money and equivalent resources, labour strike power, capital strike power, voting power (electorally and within party organisations) and media/message distribution power are the only things which count on the playing field you are suggesting.

                      Everything else is a social, well-meaning and informative talk fest. The unpalatable truth is that the Left gave up most of its bases of power over the last 40 years. What good is a labour movement which cannot even organise a general strike.

                    • Bill …
                      6 June 2013 at 12:27 am

                      But CV. When ordinary citizens pick up on something and run with it, then political parties- the orthodox SD left and their offshoots – as well as ‘traditional’ economic levers and any other ‘traditional’ power bases just don’t mean anything any more. They are insignificant.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      6 June 2013 at 1:01 am

                      Is that really true though? How many austerity budgets have massive riots and protests in Greece stopped? What are ordinary citizens going to do to counter the organisation resources networks followers and power of the establishment parties, especially if those parties have access to the levers of governmental power?

                      A citizenry rabble is no more an effective political force than a pile of timber is a house.

                    • Bill …
                      6 June 2013 at 10:14 am

                      Is it really true, well….um, the collapse of the entire ‘Eastern Bloc’ looks to me suspiciously like one example of it being true.

    • Pasupial 6.4
      5 June 2013 at 9:23 am

      You’ve got to admit that this threat to terrorise Labour’s by-election adversaries is incentive for; the Greens, Maori, and Mana; to both organise and mobilise – so that’ll be two of his objectives achieved. But there is an election within 18 months, and coalition with some (if not all) of these three parties is Labour’s main chance to get their bums back on the seats of government. Unless of course, Shearer’s plan is to go for broke and coalesce with National; which would be the end of Labour.

      A week may be a long time in politics, but memories last longer than that.

    • BM 6.5
      5 June 2013 at 10:03 am

      Bit of a clanger that one.

      • Colonial Viper 6.5.1
        5 June 2013 at 10:53 am

        Yes, like the way the Titanic ran into an iceberg made a ‘clang’ sound. Why would you want to “terrorise” political parties like Greens and Te Mana and even the Maori Party whom you may be needing as coalition partners shortly?

        • BM 6.5.1.1
          5 June 2013 at 11:09 am

          I get the feeling Dave has lost all confidence and has no idea what to say or do.
          In this situation, someone must have handed him a bit of paper and said read this, unfortunately some one must have handed him the wrong bit of paper.

          Bet he’s kicking himself in the nads on a daily basis for giving up his cushy UN job for this politics bull shit.
          Worse decision ever.

          • Rhinocrates 6.5.1.1.1
            5 June 2013 at 9:01 pm

            You’re assuming that he has some self-awareness. He might be baffled, I’ll grant, but whether he knows why he’s doing so poorly, I doubt very much. Most likely he thinks that, as it is with every politician’s justification, it’s everyone else’s fault. The poor ignorant “followers” just don’t appreciate him.

            Still, in another six months, we’ll see the error of our ways. You see, it’s not his fault, it’s ours.

    • Saarbo 6.6
      5 June 2013 at 8:53 pm

      You really have to start to wonder whether Lusk played a part in Shearer’s rise in politics!

  8. ak 8
    5 June 2013 at 9:19 am

    Excellent publicity and motivation for Mana, who strikingly now resemble the legendary voice of reason. All in all not bad for the Left in general – this is purely the MANGRL show, couldn’t have achieved better from a professional MANGR-management consultant. Serendipity Sue rides into the east.

  9. vto 9
    5 June 2013 at 9:23 am

    Well done to Tuhoe and the Crown.

  10. Olwyn 10
    5 June 2013 at 9:26 am

    I see the Herald is getting its oar into the upcoming by-election. Concerning the Mana candidate, who had a brain tumour a few years back, the headline and opening paragraph goes, “Candidate Kept Some Cancer Cash: A Mana Party candidate who kept $12,000 that had been given for his cancer treatment says he was unable to give the money back.”

    If you read the whole article and the story is that people raised money for his treatment. As it happened he was able to get the operation done for free through the health service. So he gave the money that was raised to charity, except for $12,000 dollars, which the donors urged him to keep to ease his recovery. However, the Herald has framed things so that the first impression is that he pocketed the money.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10888445

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      5 June 2013 at 10:55 am

      Lowest of the low. Referring to the Herald of course.

      • Tigger 10.1.1
        5 June 2013 at 12:32 pm

        The Maori Party may want to rethink this sort of statement.

        Maori Party candidate Na Raihania, who also appeared on Native Affairs, said the questions about the fundraising “came as a big surprise”.

        “I’m pretty sure the voters will be interested in that sort of thing,” he said.

        “People expect a high level when you’re running for office and the people will judge where that is.”

        Good response from Labour.

      • Paul 10.1.2
        5 June 2013 at 6:40 pm

        Isn’t the Herald such a wonderful paper?
        So balanced in its reporting as ever….

    • Anne 10.2
      5 June 2013 at 6:58 pm

      Yes I was absolutely disgusted by that headline. What’s more those responsible for organising the money raising confirmed they urged him to keep it to help him post-recovery. It stands to reason he probably couldn’t work while under treatment, so the money would have helped him pay outstanding bills. Who are these inept, ignorant buffoons who call themselves journalists and reporters?

  11. farmboy 11
    5 June 2013 at 10:30 am

    Hey clint i probably will

    [lprent: Who are you talking to? Looks off-topic – moved to OpenMike. ]

  12. Coronial Typer 12
    5 June 2013 at 11:15 am

    LTMA done through parliament last night.

    Anyone noticed the power shift it entails from Auckland Council to Government?
    Silent, but a major.

  13. just saying 13
    5 June 2013 at 11:32 am

    Most of those affected are probably onto this, but I just went back over 5 years of returns with the tax department on the phone and have $1590 before interest in tax rebates due. You don’t have to pay those woohoo people – the tax dept will do it for free. Those of us on lower incomes haven’t had to fill in a return for many years, and many are likely to have been overpaying their tax.
    I don’t recommend anyone even attempt to use the website though.

    • Lanthanide 13.1
      5 June 2013 at 12:48 pm

      “have $1590 before interest in tax rebates due.”

      AFAIK you don’t get paid interest on overdue tax refunds.

      “I don’t recommend anyone even attempt to use the website though.”

      It’s not impossible to use, but it is far more difficult and confusing than it should be. I really wonder who designed it.

      • just saying 13.1.1
        5 June 2013 at 1:15 pm

        The helpful woman at the IRD said she would calculate interest and add it to the total.
        It’s not impossible to use.. Have you succeeded in navigating it Lanth? because it sure seemed imposssible to me. By design I’d say.
        Lotta money. Unexpected.
        Don’t know what sort of cut the woo-hoo people take.
        Feeling pretty chuffed akshully:-)

        • Lanthanide 13.1.1.1
          5 June 2013 at 6:24 pm

          “Have you succeeded in navigating it Lanth?”
          Yes, several times over 3 years, for filing IR3s and looking at previous years.

  14. tamati 14
    5 June 2013 at 11:59 am

    A handful of noisy middle class “Chardonnay Environmentalists” convinced the Hamilton City Council to end fluoridation. Thousands of poor Hamilton children will now suffer, despite a scientific consensus and overwhelming majority of Hamiltonians supporting fluoridation. Shame.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/8758073/Fluoride-to-be-removed-from-Hamiltons-water-supply

    • freedom 14.1
      5 June 2013 at 12:42 pm

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szL2Ofzvpcs
      no matter how diluted, do you really want this in your drinking water?

      • tamati 14.1.1
        5 June 2013 at 12:47 pm

        I’d rather public policy be based on hard science than youtube videos, frankly.

        • weka 14.1.1.1
          5 June 2013 at 1:09 pm

          Like when they thought giving thalidomide to pregnant women was a good idea (to use an extreme example). Or when they thought giving menopausal women hormones was a good idea until they realised that it led to an increase in breast cancer (to give a less extreme but more recent example). Or when they thought that screening for all cancers was a good idea until they realised that it’s only useful to screen for some cancers because the others give lots of false positives and lead to lots of unnecessary interventions. Seriously, if you think that science on its own protects people, you don’t know much about how often science gets it wrong.

          • tamati 14.1.1.1.1
            5 June 2013 at 2:55 pm

            The evidence supporting water fluoridation comprensive and conclusive. No comparison to some 1950s morning sickness pill, HRT or screening.

            • weka 14.1.1.1.1.1
              5 June 2013 at 5:17 pm

              “The evidence supporting water fluoridation comprensive and conclusive.”

              [citation needed]

              You seem to not be understanding that the issue isn’t about whether fluoridation works, it’s about the risks and side effects and whether it’s ethical to medicate people without their consent.

              Further, your statemtent “The evidence supporting [insert medication of choice] comprensive and conclusive.” is exactly the kind of statement made from science until scientists discover that they are wrong including for the HRT recommendations that I referred to. The scientific method in its pure form is admirable. How science plays out in the real world is full of flaws and is why important decisions shouldn’t be left up to scientists alone.

              • Colonial Viper …
                5 June 2013 at 5:31 pm

                Absolutely. The compulsory, non-optional, mass medication of people needs a waaaaay higher standard of evidence in terms of safety and effectiveness than any other ordinary situation.

                • tamati …
                  5 June 2013 at 6:02 pm

                  Absolutely, and it is.

                  I tried to not get into a hyperlink war, but alas one has to fight back so here’s my 2 cents.

                  The ministry of health is a good start,

                  http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/fluoridation/water-fluoridation

                  The British Medical Journal published a comprehensive review,

                  http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7265/855.full

                  Water Fluoridation is also effective in adults too,

                  http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/86/5/410.short

                  Incidentally, does the Labour party have a policy on this? As a former Dental Nurse Annette King would probably have some strong views!

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    5 June 2013 at 6:36 pm

                    Orthodox sources supporting the orthodoxy. Shocking, I say.

                    • weka …
                      5 June 2013 at 7:14 pm

                      Well we can expect the MoH to be promoting the orthodoxy.

                      The third link is useless because the full version is behind a pay wall.

                      The BMJ link is interesting.


                      Conclusions

                      Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken. As such, this review should provide both researchers and commissioners of research with an overview of the methodological limitations of previous research.

                      The evidence of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. No clear evidence of other potential negative effects was found. This evidence on positive and negative effects needs to be considered along with the ethical, environmental, ecological, financial, and legal issues that surround any decisions about water fluoridation. Any future research into the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation should be carried out with appropriate methodology to improve the quality of the existing evidence base.

                      What is already known on this topic

                      Dental caries cause morbidity and suffering and incur costs

                      Artificial water fluoridation has been used as a community intervention to reduce the prevalence of dental caries for decades in some communities, but its use remains controversial

                      What this study adds
                      A systematic review of water fluoridation reveals that the quality of the evidence is low

                      Overall, reductions in the incidence of caries were found, but they were smaller than previously reported

                      The prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) is highly associated with the concentration of fluoride in drinking water

                      An association of water fluoride with other adverse effects was not found

                      A few observations. The review’s purpose was to look at efficacy, not risk. While some of the studies included were analysed for risk, it wasn’t the primary focus of the work.

                      The conclusion of no association of fluoride with adverse effects combined with the poor quality of the studies included (and perhaps the fact that the study was commissioned by the UK MoH) suggest that further investigation is warranted (and no evidence of association with adverse effects doesn’t necessarily equate to proof that there are no adverse effects).

                      Of the few risks found, they include neurological. That with the Harvard study suggests further investigation is warranted (which is what the Harvard team are suggesting).

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      5 June 2013 at 9:23 pm

                      weka. New research suggests that humans today are 10-20 IQ points less intelligent than people in the late 1800’s.

                      We are measurably and significantly dumber and slower than our forefathers. I wonder why. I wouldn’t want to posit any “conspiracy theories” now.

                    • weka …
                      5 June 2013 at 9:59 pm

                      Interesting. There could be many reasons for that though (and I’m not sure how useful IQ testing is for understanding humans). I’m assuming the research was done somewhere like the US rather than cross culturally? Got some links I can have a look at? (haven’t had much luck with google).

        • freedom 14.1.1.2
          5 June 2013 at 1:09 pm

          “I’d rather public policy be based on hard science than youtube videos, frankly.”

          Overall, I believe we all would, but even youtube is useful at times, such as in that news broadcast when it plainly illustrated how dangerous the chemicals are.
          It is a toxic industrial waste. It eats concrete tamati.

          I have heard all the discussions over the years from both sides, yet I walk into a store and see fast growing acres of soda drinks and junkfoods that systematically destroy more teeth than any amount of this toxin could [arguably] hope to protect. I do not see the pro-flouridation people protesting any of it. A bullet proof vest is not necessary if you take away the bullets.

          • weka 14.1.1.2.1
            5 June 2013 at 1:49 pm

            “I’d rather public policy be based on hard science than youtube videos, frankly.”

            How about the Harvard School of Public Health then?


            July 25, 2012 — For years health experts have been unable to agree on whether fluoride in the drinking water may be toxic to the developing human brain. Extremely high levels of fluoride are known to cause neurotoxicity in adults, and negative impacts on memory and learning have been reported in rodent studies, but little is known about the substance’s impact on children’s neurodevelopment. In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children. Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted.

            http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

            • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.2.1.1
              5 June 2013 at 2:17 pm

              Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

            • tamati 14.1.1.2.1.2
              5 June 2013 at 2:59 pm

              A straw man argument.

              That was a study of naturally occuring fluoride present at far higher levels than used in public health water fluoridation.

              • muzza …
                5 June 2013 at 3:51 pm

                Straw Man – Tamati, stop being foolish, go do some reading, you are way off track on this one!

                The unnatural toxic by-product created by the toxic pollution of the fertilizer and mining industries, banned in most of the western world, even banned in china, yet they sell it to those nations, states, cities, foolish enough to PAY, to take it off their hands, saving them millions in the cost of the disposal.

                Are you suggesting that its ok to put the toxic by-product in water, yet the testing of the naturally occurring levels of testing, was a, *straw man

                • Tamati …
                  5 June 2013 at 4:53 pm

                  I’m well read on public health thank you very much.

                  And no, water fluoridation is not some conspiracy to dispose of toxic waste.

                  • muzza …
                    5 June 2013 at 5:13 pm

                    You didn’t answer the question, Tamati. Your obviously a proponent of mass medication, regardless if you could identify where Water Care Services, for example, source the product they dump into Aucklands water supply, or not!

                    Perhaps take up the conversation people such as…

                    Dr. Arvid Carlsson, won the Nobel Prize in Medicine/Physiology in 2000 for his research on neurotransmitters in the brain. In a 2005 interview, Dr. Arvid Carlsson noted that “fluoridation is against all modern principles of pharmacology. It’s obsolete. I don’t think anybody in Sweden, not a single dentist, would bring up this question anymore.”

                    -Rosalie Bertell, PhD, Regent of the Board, International Physicians for Humanitarian Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland,
                    -Theo Colborn, PhD, co-author, Our Stolen Future
                    -Ken Cook, President, Environmental Working Group
                    -Pat Costner, retired Senior Scientist, Greenpeace International
                    -Ron Cummins, Director, Organic Consumers Association
                    -Ingrid Eckerman, MD, MPH, President, Swedish Doctors for the Environment (LFM), Stockholm, Sweden
                    -Sam Epstein, MD, author, “Politics of Cancer” and Chairman,Cancer Prevention Coalition
                    -Jay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides
                    -Lois Gibbs, Executive Director, Center for Health, Environment, and Justice
                    -Andy Harris, MD, Former National President, Physicians for Social Responsibility
                    -Vyvyan Howard, MD, PhD, Past President, International Society of Doctors for the Environment
                    -Stephen Lester, Science Director, Center for Health, Environment, and Justice
                    -Peter Montague, PhD, Director of Environmental Health Foundation
                    -Ted Schettler, MD, Science Director, Science and Environmental Health Network

                    If the Scandinavians don’t use it, that in itself would be sufficient evidence for me, they know better than the halfwits of the anglo-file western world, by very long way!

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    5 June 2013 at 5:15 pm

                    where is the fluoride sourced from?

              • weka …
                5 June 2013 at 5:34 pm

                “A straw man argument.”

                I know, silly old Harvard for publishing that. Even worse, they published this statement from the study authors –

                –These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.

                That is responsible science.

                Following on from that, the public have a role to play in how public health policy is formed.

                btw, it wasn’t a single study. It was a meta study done by the Harvard School of Public Health and the China Medical University, analysing 27 individual studies.

          • tamati 14.1.1.2.2
            5 June 2013 at 3:05 pm

            Good luck with banning soft drinks.

            How about we do something we can actually achieve and will actually make a difference to people’s lives?

            Clearly the substances will have different effect at vastly different concentrations. Dihydrogen monoxide kills at higher enough concentrations, should we ban that from our water supply.

            • freedom 14.1.1.2.2.1
              5 June 2013 at 4:20 pm

              Can you not agree to the hypothesis that as a general dietary article removing softdrinks would be good for children’s health? That aside, at no point did I say I want to ban softdrinks. I mentioned they are right there on the shelf, doing damage one hyper-caloried litre of refined sugars at a time. I may have distractedly pointed at the selective hypocrisy of harm reduction protocols in modern society. That does not mean I want to ban it. I did say it would be better if the bullets were taken away and perhaps that is a tad severe, as I am more naturally inclined to simply point the gun away from the person.

              btw- ever hook anything on that joke’s dull barb ? 😎

              • Tamati …
                5 June 2013 at 5:06 pm

                Absolutely removing soft drinks would be a great for children’s health. I think you’ll find many of those advocating for Fluoridation would also strongly support restrictions on access to soft drinks.

                • freedom …
                  5 June 2013 at 5:54 pm

                  You agree that choice is important and I would guess you see that through an incredibly simple adjustment to existing commercial structures there could be varied choices as to how fluoridated water can be delivered to the populace. Fluoridated toothpaste is a far more reliable and direct method of delivery but off the shelf bottled water with all the toxins you can handle also seems a logical product. Might be a real goldmine for you, seeing as there are apparently so many people interested in ingesting a poison that in its raw state dissolves concrete.

                  Have you ever looked at the links of fluoride to retardation of brain development and associated difficulties? If you choose to medicate you and yours with industrial waste products that is your decision. Have you fully considered others also want the right to make that decision about what medication they ingest. There are few topics in this world more important, more essential for a society to evaluate, than citizens being medicated against their will. I do hope you reconsider your willingness to submit.

            • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.2.2.2
              5 June 2013 at 4:24 pm

              banning soft drinks is quite achievable, if it was deemed to be desirable. There would of course be a cost in political capital.

              • weka …
                5 June 2013 at 5:36 pm

                And if we didn’t fluoridate water there would be more attention given to the causes of childhood tooth decay and alternate public health responses.

                • freedom …
                  5 June 2013 at 6:00 pm

                  yup,
                  there might even be crazy responses like giving kids an occasional apple instead of chocolate jelly donut sandwiches

                  • weka …
                    5 June 2013 at 7:18 pm

                    Shit, we might even look at the connections between poverty, nutrition and dental health.

        • travellerev 14.1.1.3
          5 June 2013 at 9:35 pm

          Funny you should say that. Those middle class “chardonnay” activists brought a bunch of scientists with them to make their case.

          If you’re so keen on fluoride you’ll find it in every toothpaste and most of those “poor” children will use it no matter whether they want it or not cause it is really hard to find a tooth paste without the crap.

    • thatguynz 14.2
      5 June 2013 at 1:27 pm

      Scientific consensus?? Surely you jest?

      Might pay to delve into topical versus ingested fluoride, then have a look at blind tests conducted elsewhere, then look at the comparison between Sodium Fluoride and Calcium Fluoride and associated test results.. Once you have managed all of that, I’d dearly welcome you coming back and still extolling the virtues of forced medication via your drinking water…

      Meanwhile I guess I’m off to enjoy my Chardonnay and gaze lovingly over my garden. Oh whoops, I’m actually working – nice failed stereotype on your part…

  15. Winston Smith 15
    5 June 2013 at 12:41 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10888445

    – Sounds like hes ready to join parliament

    • gobsmacked 15.1
      5 June 2013 at 12:45 pm

      How about reading before trolling? No need to exert yourself, just a slight movement of finger to see previous posts.

      • Paul 15.1.1
        5 June 2013 at 6:44 pm

        He’s a wingnut.
        According to the Science, they’re not that intelligent…
        http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

        • weka 15.1.1.1
          5 June 2013 at 7:26 pm

          I don’t feel like reading that study tonight but would point out two things. One is that conservative values are part of why humans have been successful (if you do what already works, your tribe succeeds and reproduces), so it’s likely that our best bet is a mix of liberal and conservative values (Am not talking politics here, nor equating conservative with neoliberal).

          The other point is that prejudice against conservatives is hardly a solution to the prejudicial nature of right wingers. And it’s not like the left don’t have problems of their own on this score.

          • karol 15.1.1.1.1
            5 June 2013 at 7:37 pm

            Actually I would think that a species that can repeat successful behaviour,
            plus be flexible and innovative enough to adapt to new situations/environments,
            proactively take measures to deal with some predictable dangers,
            and be innovative in adapting their environment to maximise their potential, would be more likely to be “successful” evolutionary-wise.

            Also, reproduction over generations is generally more beneficial to a community if they have sex with people outside their own group in order to diversify their genes/DNA. That requires that a community is open to practices of different kinds of communities.

            • weka 15.1.1.1.1.1
              5 June 2013 at 7:45 pm

              Yes Karol. I think my point was that humans needed conservative values as well as progressive/adaptive ones, so we should be wary of developing prejudices against conservatism.

              We could argue that an excess of innovative genes got us into our current mess though 😉 (all the way from the invention of agriculture through to AGW).

              • karol …
                5 June 2013 at 7:55 pm

                yes, weka, I was thinking something similar about the down-side of innovation as I was writing the above comment.

            • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1.1.2
              5 June 2013 at 7:55 pm

              Actually I would think that a species that can repeat successful behaviour,
              plus be flexible and innovative enough to adapt to new situations/environments,
              proactively take measures to deal with some predictable dangers,
              and be innovative in adapting their environment to maximise their potential, would be more likely to be “successful” evolutionary-wise.

              You speak of “species”, but for humans you need to speak of “tribes” or “traditions”.

              Many rural conservatives do all of this automatically. You can snow these people in on their farm for a week without town power, town water or town supplies, and they wouldn’t give a damn.

              Liberal left wing townies – freezing and near starving after 2 days.

              Also, reproduction over generations is generally more beneficial to a community if they have sex with people outside their own group in order to diversify their genes/DNA.

              A gene pool of 50,000 people is ample. Has real advantage been shown for a larger number than that? Not sure.

              • karol …
                5 June 2013 at 8:05 pm

                Evolutionary success focuses at a species level. Tribal and traditional differences are an example of the diverse ways the human species is able to adapt to the circumstances they are born into. They are learned differences and, in principle, can be unlearned. though individuals differ as to how much they can adapt to something different from their up-bringing.

                These days your characterisation might be true of me as a left wing townie, CV. But when I grew up in Auckland, there were far less mod cons and we often “made do” Summer holidays were spent camping with few mod cons – kerosene lamps, long drop loo, no hot water, no baths or showers, only the radio to listen to at night.

                In my younger days I spent several months hitching and camping in Europe, in fairly cold weather (sometimes snow) always sleeping out doors on the hard ground.

                It doesn’t take that long to get used to changed circumstances, at least for some of us.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  5 June 2013 at 8:32 pm

                  In the “old” days, people mended their own clothes (and handed them down), grew a large proportion of their own vegetables, were quite happy to light and heat one room in a house. Advertising and societal pressures have deliberately taught people to want and expect more. How many people can even plan meals ahead of time taking things out of the freezer, without a microwave?

                  Evolutionary success focuses at a species level.

                  Well, our species has only been around for a couple of hundred thousand years. From a species perspective I think it’s very early days to determine what a successful strategy is and what it is not.

                  Personally I’ll be very impressed if our current civilisation and economic arrangements lasts another 75 years (nb civilisation, not species).

                  • karol …
                    5 June 2013 at 8:44 pm

                    Well, up til now our species has been very successful in evolutionary terms. However, it looks like we have been too “successful,” and,as you say, CV, our civilisation hangs on the brink.

                    It sometimes fascinates me to ponder that only a couple of generations back, my ancestors were living without electricity or the kind of indoor plumbing we are used to. Most of my grandparents and all my great grandparents grew up in the likes of Scotland and Northern Ireland without electricity, motor cars etc. I marvel at how they must have coped with winters, whether from working or professional classes.

                    In that short a time, we have had an escalation in technologies, and, here we are now hanging on the brink.

              • Rhinocrates …
                5 June 2013 at 9:05 pm

                A gene pool of 50,000 people is ample.

                Hmmm, that’s approximately the size of the surviving Colonial fleet.

                That said, the extreme lack of genetic diversity in our species today has suggested to some that after the eruption of the Toba supervolcano, the ancestors of H sap. were reduced to only a couple of thousand breeding pairs or less.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_supervolcano

                • lprent …
                  5 June 2013 at 9:17 pm

                  Don’t they seem to spend all of their time trying to screw each other up with or without the connivance of assorted outsiders? Could just be the “reporting” but 50k seems to be somewhat too social to me. Give me a nice anonymous million or so.. And perhaps 50k is a bit small bearing in mind how many back-stabbed dead gene-bearers are around.

                  A sperm/egg bank is probably a better bet.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  5 June 2013 at 9:59 pm

                  Hmmm, that’s approximately the size of the surviving Colonial fleet.

                  Well well well, isn’t that a coincidence 😈

    • freedom 15.2
      5 June 2013 at 1:19 pm

      “- Sounds like he’s ready to join parliament”

      by being forthright and direct in his dealings with the fund raisers, the media and the general public?
      yeah, that makes a real nice change from what we usually get !

      Oh you meant the other thing . . . how The Herald tried to twist a story to make him appear shifty and corrupt and not to be trusted?

      Do you have an account at the hatchery ? or just buy a dozen at a time?

  16. Sanctuary 16
    5 June 2013 at 1:42 pm

    Anti-Flouride Mana voters out in force today I see. The lefts very own one percenters.

    And as for the Shearer press release, some of you people need to lighten up a bit. It was just a badly constructed sentence. Some of you remind me of item 101 on the site “Stuff White people like”

    http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/

    • thatguynz 16.1
      5 June 2013 at 1:44 pm

      And yet again – another misguided generalisation.

    • marty mars 16.2
      5 June 2013 at 3:28 pm

      “It was just a badly constructed sentence”

      Bullshit – he deliberately used the word – a bit like “lighten up” – very droll.

      • QoT 16.2.1
        5 June 2013 at 9:18 pm

        Yeah, there’s shitty grammar and then there’s deliberately using the word “terrorise” in a post-9/11 world.

  17. freedom 17
    5 June 2013 at 2:09 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10888543
    let’s look past the fact the Government have sat on this report for over six months, or that Serco have once again shown how poorly they do their very well paid job, it is about helping prisoners’ literacy we are told.

    If a prisoner wants to lift their literacy skills it is really simple

    Upon entering Prison they sit a basic literacy/numeracy test, before coming up for parole they sit another test, if they have not improved, they do not get parole and continue to serve their sentence.

    I posit the NZ Prisoners who most need help with literacy and numeracy sit in a cell for 20+ hours a day watching TV. That sure as hell does nothing to help rehabilitate our Prison population, but a few more books and parole based enticement couldn’t hurt.

    • bad12 17.1
      5 June 2013 at 3:01 pm

      The real question that should be asked and addressed is how the hell these people and there is a lot of them got to be of an age to be sent to prison while having never learned to read nor write,

      Some of the most intelligent people i have ever met was whilst a guest of Her Majesty,(spit), in arts as in many other areas a lot of the crims are highly skilled people, at the other end of the spectrum is an up to 20% of the jail population who are illiterate…

    • Murray Olsen 17.2
      5 June 2013 at 4:04 pm

      I can’t see that working when Serco makes a profit from keeping people locked up. Irrespective of what a prisoner wants, they get what Serco allows them. You’re proposing to make their freedom dependent on something which may be out of their control.

      I agree, bad12. How the hell do so many get to adulthood without the very basics for participation in society? The literacy and numeracy need to be there before Serco get their hands on these young people.

      • Clockie 17.2.1
        5 June 2013 at 5:39 pm

        I guess I’m preaching to the choir here, but very little of the problem is caused by poor teaching as such. Quite a few of my friends and family have taught or still are teaching in low decile schools. The problems are enormous. With dedicated staff and intelligent remedial programmes many of these schools can and do turn things around to some extent for the majority of the kids passing through them. However it is a simple truth that a relatively small number of kids are practically unteachable. For some that is because they have the bad luck to be born into homes that are so dysfunctional that the by the time they get to school the children are deeply disturbed, antisocial, lack all self discipline and are years behind in their developmental milestones. A small percentage (about 5%) of children in State schools have an IQ of below 75. For obvious reasons the numbers are higher in low decile schools and lower in high decile schools. Without wanting to get into long debates about the measurability of various types of intelligence, this is pretty low mental functioning in anyone’s book. It is not that uncommon for the family background and the mental functioning to have a degree of correlation. In other words the social dysfunction, bad attitude, language problems and basic intelligence all compound each other. It’s also not surprising to find a correlation with lots of other unflattering statistics within this cohort. Trying to achieve functional literacy and numeracy for this relatively small group is extraordinarily difficult.

        http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/government_finance/central_government/nz-in-the-oecd/education.aspx

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

        • Clockie 17.2.1.1
          6 June 2013 at 6:46 pm

          Personally I’m dying to see what charter schools make of kids like the ones I’ve described above. I suspect they will avoid them like the plague in the same way that private hospitals avoid hard cases that suck up huge resources and give little return.

      • North 17.2.2
        5 June 2013 at 9:55 pm

        Then when they get older we “decent folk” in near gladiatorial style smash them for being unable to “engage” in and for our “decent” society. The society devoted to making the rich richer, richer, richer. Scandalous !

  18. aerobubble 18
    5 June 2013 at 4:13 pm

    Buy a untested car lately? That hasn’t even done a round of road testing? Would you buy that car?

    Well Key believes his ministers don’t have any responsibiity when it comes to doing even the basics of due diligence, and even sits through the Novapay minister declare all she had to do was take the advice of the geeks. No. She knows full well the Novapay system had no preliminarily testing in the field, that it went live. Well its understandable, working with those who would have to work with the system, those evil educational establishments, the evil teacher union, would make the Nats look weak.

    And its not the first time for Key to mess up on process, on ministers assuming they can sit on their hands, land sales anyone, mines anyone, its looks like Key just doesn’t get, or do, good governance.

    • aerobubble 18.1
      5 June 2013 at 4:39 pm

      Just not good enough for a minister whose minstry has just messed up to the tune of millions, or death, can just rub their hands and say all they had to do was listen to advice.

    • prism 18.2
      5 June 2013 at 5:39 pm

      aerobubble Well thinking about buying untested cars. Govt has just changed the regime that ensured we got regular wofs. Frankly they don’t care whether things actually work right, are running correctly, it’s the appearance of doing something, the setting up, the excitement, the spreading of largesse and getting some oneself that counts.

  19. Penny Bright 19
    5 June 2013 at 4:15 pm

    FYI
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    “URGENT ‘Open Letter’ / OIA request to the Chair of the Social Services Select Committee – National Party MP Peseta Lotu-Iiga Sam”

    5 June 2013

    “URGENT ‘Open Letter’ / OIA request to the Chair of the Social Services Select Committee – National Party MP Peseta Lotu-Iiga Sam”

    Dear Sam,

    I am scheduled to address the Social Services Select Committee, of which you are Chair, on Monday 10 June 2013, from 4.10pm – 4.20pm at the hearings on the ‘Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill’, which are to be held at the Ellerslie Novotel Hotel.

    I have also just been requested to give evidence in support of my following petition, from 4.20pm – 4.30pm at the same hearing, which I have agreed to do.

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Presented/Petitions/5/0/5/50DBHOH_PET3157_1-Petition-of-Penelope-Mary-Bright-requesting-that.htm

    Petition of Penelope Mary Bright

    Requesting that Parliament declines to proceed with the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill until the lawfulness of the reliance of Auckland Council on the New Zealand Department of Statistics”high”population growth projections, instead of their “medium” population growth projections for the Auckland Spatial Plan, has been properly and independently investigated, taking into consideration that both Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Ltd, have relied upon “medium” population growth projections for their infrastructural asset management plans.

    Petition number: 2011/64
    Presented by: Holly Walker
    Date presented: 30 May 2013
    Referred to: Social Services Committee

    It concerns me that the submissions for this arguably very significant Bill, which potentially affects so many people, were closed after a mere 13 days.

    Please be reminded of your stated reasons, as outlined in the following Hansard record:

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/5/7/8/50HansQ_20130530_00001001-1-Housing-Accords-and-Special-Housing-Areas.htm

    1. Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill—Closing Date for Submissions

    [Sitting date: 30 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:19. Text is subject to correction.]

    1. HOLLY WALKER (Green) to the Chairperson of the Social Services Committee: When do submissions to the Social Services Committee on the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill close?

    PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee) :Submissions on this bill close today: Thursday, 30 May 2013.

    ……………………………………………………………………….

    Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: After the bill was referred to our committee on the night of Budget night, I made—in my own decision—the decision to set a 13-day period for submissions.
    ………………………………………………………………………….

    Mr SPEAKER: I am going to ask the member Holly Walker to ask the question again, and let us hope that on this occasion we get a simple answer to a simple question.

    Holly Walker: Did he consult with the Minister of Housing or his staff before making the decision to close submissions on this date?

    Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The bill was referred on the night of Budget night, 16 May, and I did not consult with the Minister. I made this decision on my own.

    Mr SPEAKER: Thank you for that answer.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Please provide the following information which confirms whether, in making your (arguably arbitrary) decision to close submissions for the above-mentioned ‘Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill’, you were advised by, consulted with or lobbied by any of the following parties:

    1) Simon Lusk.

    2) Any person(s) associated with, in any way, the Tamaki Redevelopment Company Ltd, in particular – the Chair of the Board – Mr Martin Udale.

    3) Any member(s) of, or associated with in any way, the NZ Property Council.

    4) Any member(s) of, or associated with in any way, the Committee for Auckland.

    5) Any member(s) of, or associated with in any way, the Auckland Council
    (either elected representatives or staff).

    6) Any Board member(s) of, staff, or anyone associated with in any way, the Auckland Council Property Ltd Council Controlled Organisation (CCO).

    7) Any person(s) associated with, in any way, the NZ Treasury.

    8) Any person(s) associated with, in any way, the MBIE.

    9) Any person(s) associated with the Salvation Army.

    10) Any person(s) associated with the Auckland City Mission.

    11) Any person(s) associated with the NZ Housing Foundation.

    Under the URGENCY provisions of the OIA, given that I wish to use any information I may gather from this OIA reply when I present to the Social Services Select Committee on Monday 10 June 2013, can you please provide this information before 5pm, Friday 7 June 2013.
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

    Maiden Speech National Party MP Peseta Lotu-Iiga Sam

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/Speeches/6/6/5/49HansS_20081209_00000294-Lotu-Iiga-Peseta-Sam-Address-in-Reply.htm

    I stand before members today because of the hard work of my campaign team under the disciplined leadership of Mark Thomas, the shrewd counsel of Simon Lusk, and the industry of Josh Beddell, and with the support of many, many supporters, many of whom are here today to be with us. Finally, to the National Party president Judy Kirk, regional manager Alastair Bell, and their respective teams, I say thank you for putting your confidence and trust in me as a candidate in this year’s general election.

    http://www.lotu-iiga.com/index.php?/categories/8-Press-Release/P3.html

    Maungakiekie MP welcomes significant milestone for Tamaki

    Maungakiekie MP, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, welcomes the first neighbourhood-based renewal programme in New Zealand that was launched today at the opening of the Tamaki Redevelopment Company in Glen Innes.

    “This is exciting news for Tamaki. The Tamaki Redevelopment Company (TRC) is exactly what is needed to bring together the local community, Government and Council agencies, businesses, social services and public and private sector investment,” says Mr Lotu-Iiga.

    The new company will ensure a coordinated approach to create measurable improvements across four key components over time.

    A social component will support Tamaki residents and their families to get the skills, knowledge and employment opportunities they need. An economic component will strengthen the local economy, creating new jobs and business opportunities.

    A housing component will optimise land use and existing housing stock, including progressing private housing development and delivering better social housing options in Tamaki.

    Meanwhile, a spatial component will create safe and connected neighbourhoods and spaces that support the social and economic development of Tamaki and its community.

    “Ultimately, the TRC will bring all the current and future initiatives and projects together into a single strategic framework and will lead a single voice that will deliver Tamaki’s transformation,” says Mr Lotu-Iiga.

    “I look forward to seeing the vision of a thriving and self-reliant Tamaki turn into a reality.

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption /anti-privatisation’ campaigner.
    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate

  20. Cant remember my last username 20
    5 June 2013 at 4:22 pm

    He’s back!

    http://aaronwgilmore.wordpress.com/

  21. joe90 21
    5 June 2013 at 4:28 pm

    It seems the Erdogan purge of senior officers missed a few.

    google translation:

    In this situation, members of the military hospital suddenly began to distribute face masks to protesters. It was the second time that members of the military, although only indirectly and passively helped the protesters. In the night from Friday to Saturday soldiers had apparently paramedics gives access to injured near a barracks.

    This raises the question as to whose side the military would actually stand if the conflict continues to escalate. The Turkish police is now regarded as political through and through penetrated by the ruling AKP party, especially where there are also many supporters of the Islamic Gulen Movement have the say. This may explain the extraordinary brutality of the police action against the protesters since Friday: Because if Erdogan should fall, it would certainly lead to a wave of purges in the ranks of the police.

    • Ugly Truth 21.1
      6 June 2013 at 8:18 am

      Turkey has played a significant role in the manipulation of Islamic extremists by the US. The Gulen movement played a role in this but Gulen is now based in Pennsylvania and his movement is banned in several Asian countries. The most recent example of Turkish involvement was Benghazi, in which a Turkish diplomat left before the attacks on the consulate and the CIA annex began. The attacks seem to have been due to a failed arms deal between the CIA an Syrian rebels.

      “Fethullah Gulen became a green card holder despite serious opposition from FBI and from Homeland Security Department. Former CIA officers (formally and informally) such as Graham Fuller and Morton Abromovitz were some of the prominent references in Gulen’s green card application.” ~ Foreign Policy Journal

      http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/01/06/turkish-intel-chief-exposes-cia-operations-via-islamic-group-in-central-asia/

  22. prism 22
    5 June 2013 at 5:26 pm

    Colin MacDonald Government head IT overseer. Says that it isn’t a matter of money that there is such a low standard of security management in govt entities. Everyone is always busy it’s a matter of priorities, not that managers are overworked (and departments are understaffed with new aspirational programs being added say quarterly, with no extra time allocated to honing them to fit needs and demand, and then maintaining them.)

    I think something is revealed by this. He sounds Scottish when he speaks, and is it that our cultural cringe means that we want to employ someone who sounds more knowledgable because he/she have come from overseas, and government hopes, be able to prevaricate in a foreign dialect.

  23. gobsmacked 23
    5 June 2013 at 9:33 pm

    Shearer’s comments “unfortunate and insensitive” … according to Labour’s opponents?

    No. That description comes from Labour’s own candidate in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election:

    http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/article/?id=32731

    So, never mind floating voters, or Labour voters, or even Labour members. David Shearer is actually managing to annoy Labour candidates.

    (But we mustn’t say so, united front, he’ll be fine if we all pretend, blah blah …)